Question - Page 8

Haha..actually yeah!.. u did give me lot to think over!👏

I mean I was really really stubborn over not justifying Sri Rama's decision as a king..I came up with my own justification in support of my statement..I felt that as a King he should not have encouraged the ignorance of his subjects..instead he should have taken a firm stand by standing by his wife publicly and guide his subjects away from their ignorance and help them lead their lives with a better perspective.. I felt that by separating from Devi Sita publicly he actually unintentionally confirmed all the doubts cast over her character ..n that is y Devi Sita knew that no amount of agni pareekshas could undo the damage thereby leading it to the final tragedy..I still have another doubt though, according to u Lord Rama separated from his wife publicly to avoid dishounring his throne ( u gave contemporary examples to support the statement which in fact made all the difference for me).. but going by the same logic , lord Rama did indeed dishonour his throne later in the absence of his wife wherein he did not give in to pressures of getting married again instead he created a golden statue for the havan rituals.. so going by the same logic, did he not deny the praja their right/ambition/ happiness of having a new Queen for them?.. going by the same logic wasn't it the king's duty to give the praja a new Queen??..Sri Ram certainly drew lines here..he took a firm standing to show his devotion towards his wife..ur opinion is this kind of devotion shown by Sri Rama after separating from his wife publicly for the sake of his praja would in turn have made praja realize their mistakes..but there is a strong possibility that instead of realising their mistakes the praja would continue with their ignorance n think that " poor king is still devoted to his cheating wife".. bcoz by renouncing his wife publicly, Sri Rama had unintentionally confirmed all the ignorant speculations of the praja..now coming back to my original point, if the king's dharma told Sri Rama that he must in fact renounce his wife publicly for the sake of his praja, y did the same king's dharma not tell him that it was important that he remarry for the sake of his praja?.. praja after all needs a queen too..wouldn't denying the praja a queen b adharma as per the King's dharma??

@bold...😲 😲 😲 ????.. what??.. if that is the case then y blame Sri Rama at all??.. it was a mutual decision??.. Sherlock( a highly knowledgeable forum member) did point out that I should read our dharma texts to get an idea about what it means to b a king as well as a QUEEN.. but even he didn't go as far as saying that Devi Sita was actually a part of this decision herself..that is a fairly new perspective yet again 😕..but this time m not sure what to make out of it..I mean u did say that u 'feel' that it would have been like that... so I would feel better about accepting it if someone seconds ur statement.. I mean as far as I know, yes, Devi Sita was the one who insisted on being a part of vanvas with her husband, but when she was brought to the valmiki's ashram she was completely unaware of her husband's decision to separate from her..

 

 

About what the Praja will conclude - could go either way. But it is the duty of the King to try, so Lord Ram tried. Success and Failure comes only after one tries. The possibility of failure cannot be the reason not to try.  Yes, he was not successful, which is why the 'third time' was the watershed.

 

Regarding the exile being a mutual decision - yes this is purely a 'feeling' on my part, as most of what I have read is abridged. The other members would know better how it went and what it meant. 

 

The original Valmiki Ramayan must definitely contain a major portion on this decision. Some time back I had read an article in the TOI which had stated that there was so much detail in it - even some recipes of what was cooked in Sita Mata's kitchen. It was also stated that the physical attributes of the major characters, especially female, was so detailed that we of today's times (especially given the current Victorianised Indian sensibility) would actually be offended. 

 

I really regret not having learnt Sanskrit. Such a large and beautiful array of Sacred texts waiting to be read - but we have to depend on the translations which many a times results in the "lost in translation" syndrome!!

 

Very tricky business indeed..I personally feel that if the concerned praja were so sensitive that they would consider '' their king still being with the queen whom they doubted so much'' as "sullying the throne"  ,then the same sensitive praja is very likely to consider "their king using a golden statue of his abandoned wife whom they doubted so much instead of remarrying for something as auspicious as a fire ritual" as "sullying the throne"..

Lord Rama's efforts:

I felt that as a king he should have made efforts to lead his praja to righteous path by not separating from his wife..thereby making a stronger statement about his faith in his wife and eventually making the praja understand their mistakes..n I dont c any king adharma in that ( obviously m going wrong somewhere, bcoz lord Rama believed the opposite was the right thing do).. first, Lord Rama gives priority to his praja and separates from his wife thereby confirming their suspicions about Devi Sita's chastity..then for the fire ritual he again disrespects the same praja by using a golden statue of the same queen the praja deemed unworthy of their king..in short, lord Rama disrespected his wife as well as his praja back to back..ghosh, that sounds horrible! ..I know, but logic seems to lead to that conclusion... members of the forum have been putting up with my doubts n questions so far..but m not sure if they will deem it appropriate to let me continue any more with such horrendous conclusions..

Yes I perfectly agree with u about Victorianization of our mentality in recent times...its pathetic!.. its even more so bcoz there r some beautiful explicit aspects of our religion ( Shiv Shakthi) that people now a days might not even want to talk about due to their changed closeted mentality..this was not how our religion taught us to b..

YOu don't understand why Rama killed Vali, or why he killed him secretly? What is MO,btw?

 

Not the why; THE HOW.

 

MO = Modus Operandi  (I am a bit of a crime thriller buff, so the vocab sometimes creeps in...)

@ rsnarula67

Apparently, abandoning Devi Sita is not the only unfair decision that Lord Rama took..the Vali incident is also frequently talked about...so much for being the maryadapurushottam and dharma abiding godly king!..😕..I had a vague memory of the Vali incident in Ramayana, I racked my taamsic brain again n went through the story again..Lord Rama gave a direct justification in case of Vali unlike Sita abandonment incident , mainly bcoz Vali himself asked those questions to lord Rama n the answers to which were more than satisfactory to Vali.. moreover, to balance the injustice further , lord Rama gave Vali a boon to take his revenge on lord Rama in his next birth..vali was born as a hunter who was the cause of Sri Krishna's death..

As for MO (the how) about Lord Rama managed to kill Vali, its been pretty clear to me..Vali had a boon that 50% of his opponent's powers would b transferred to him in an open combat..so he practically became invincible.. even Ravan was terribly defeated by Vali.. however, lord Rama never challenged him for an open combat like a real warrior usually does..he attacked vali from behind n killed him by catching him off guard ..lord Rama's justification was that he never viewed Vali as a human or warrior to challenge him for open combat since Vali was more or less like an animal due to his adharma and vanar ancestry ( a little racist but whatever).. n king Bharat had given lord Rama permission to annihilate adharma n restore dharma..so that is y instead of fighting like a warrior, lord Rama chose to attack Vali like a hunter attacks an animal in stealth from behind..

Anyways, I found the following website where both the issues - Sita's abandonment n Vali's assassination has been discussed..go through the comments wen u can, they r especially enlightening..

Thank you so much 4 posting ur views on the topic..I suppose seeing the negativity instead of positivity is indeed rooted in taamsic Prakriti( c earlier posts)..I hope as I get older , I too will come around justifying Sri Rama's actions as an ideal king & as an ideal husband but I just dont c it happening anytime soon..bcoz as we get older, through life experience one gets closer to spiritual enlightenment.. n right now, it seems m far away from it.. in the meantime, I m at peace with my own justification of Sri Rama's actions ( its in the earlier posts) which I was able to do only through an active discussion on this thread..

The reasons and justifications that u put forth were the same that has been put forth on numerous occasions in defence of lord Rama.. but those reasons and justifications just dint seem acceptable to me and my faith in god..